COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KAZAKHSTANI AND EUROPEAN APPROACHES FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF SHALLOW AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Abstract

This research project considers the problems of the integration of European standards in Kazakhstan. The introduction of Eurocode in the construction sector experiences the difficulties associated with the adaptation of project documentation to local regulatory systems and the application of innovative construction technologies that do not conform to national SNiP-based regulations. The advantages associated with the harmonization of the Kazakhstani and European approaches include the application of innovative construction technologies in the country and the elimination of technical barriers between local and foreign specialists. The harmonization of national and European design codes represents a gradual process, which requires careful consideration. Thus, the significance of the study of international design code and its design methods arises. This research work is dedicated to providing technical background on the application of Eurocode 7 and performance of the construction works following international standards in Kazakhstan. The main idea of this study refers to the comparison of Kazakhstani and European approaches for the geotechnical design of shallow and deep foundations (i.e., pad, strip, raft, pile, and piled raft). The design of different foundation types is performed by SP RK 5.01-102-2013 «Foundations of buildings and structures», SP RK 5.01-103-2013 «Pile foundations», and Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design for the design problem in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. The over-design factor, bearing resistance, and elastic settlement are calculated adhering to both Kazakhstani and European approaches. Based on the performed comparative analysis it is identified that Eurocode provides more conservative results – thus, higher safety level, - compared to the Kazakhstani building regulations. The sensitivity analysis presenting the change of the bearing resistance values on different foundation parameters is given to support the conclusions about Eurocode conservativeness. The difference between the estimated results is explained by the application of higher partial safety factors by Eurocode 7. Moreover, the European approach combines the design methods and traditions of various EU-countries, which contributes to a more conservative geotechnical design compared to the Kazakhstani approach.